Is the Golden Age of YouTube Over? (theverge.com) 256
An anonymous reader quotes the Verge:
As YouTube battles misinformation catastrophes and discovers new ways people are abusing its system, the company is shifting toward more commercial, advertiser-friendly content at a speed its creator community hasn't seen before. The golden age of YouTube -- the YouTube of a million different creators all making enough money to support themselves by creating videos about doing what they love -- is over... By the end of 2016, when algorithm changes were creating headaches for some of the platform's biggest creators, people started announcing they had to take a break from the site they called home. YouTube wasn't what it was between 2011 and 2016... YouTube was exerting more control over what users saw and what videos would make money...
YouTube faced an escalating crisis of radicalization and sweeping conspiracy theories that had been ignored by executives for years. The company's first small efforts to address these serious issues -- promoting content from musicians, late-night shows, and recommending fewer independent creators -- would have huge secondary effects on the middle-tier creators who had once been the heart of the platform during its golden period. It pushed YouTube toward the exact same Hollywood content to which it had once been an alternative.... Even people outside of YouTube saw what was happening. "YouTube is inevitably heading towards being like television, but they never told their creators this," Jamie Cohen, a professor of new media at Molloy College, told USA Today in 2018....
Individual YouTube creators couldn't keep up with the pace YouTube's algorithm set. But traditional, mainstream outlets could: late-night shows began to dominate YouTube, along with music videos from major labels. The platform now looked the way it had when it started, but with the stamp of Hollywood approval.
It's a contrast from the earliest days of YouTube, the article argues. Rather than user-generated content, "it was something else that helped the site explode in popularity: piracy." But their pivot to user-generated content apparently slowed with what YouTube creators call the "adpocalypse" -- YouTube's aggressive demonetization of "problematic" videos. (A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)
To be fair, by 2017 YouTube had a problem. Every minute users uploaded 27,000 minutes of new footage, making it difficult to pre-screen. But after adjusting their algorithm, "perceived, secretive changes instilled creators with a distrust of the platform."
The old YouTube "seemed to welcome the wonderfully weird, innovative, and earnest, instead of turning them away in favor of late-night show clips and music videos," writes the Verge. But the new YouTube is different, say two brothers who used CGI to re-create Mortal Kombat's most gruesome kills on their RackaRacka channel. They say the new YouTube now buries their videos for "excessive violence."
YouTube faced an escalating crisis of radicalization and sweeping conspiracy theories that had been ignored by executives for years. The company's first small efforts to address these serious issues -- promoting content from musicians, late-night shows, and recommending fewer independent creators -- would have huge secondary effects on the middle-tier creators who had once been the heart of the platform during its golden period. It pushed YouTube toward the exact same Hollywood content to which it had once been an alternative.... Even people outside of YouTube saw what was happening. "YouTube is inevitably heading towards being like television, but they never told their creators this," Jamie Cohen, a professor of new media at Molloy College, told USA Today in 2018....
Individual YouTube creators couldn't keep up with the pace YouTube's algorithm set. But traditional, mainstream outlets could: late-night shows began to dominate YouTube, along with music videos from major labels. The platform now looked the way it had when it started, but with the stamp of Hollywood approval.
It's a contrast from the earliest days of YouTube, the article argues. Rather than user-generated content, "it was something else that helped the site explode in popularity: piracy." But their pivot to user-generated content apparently slowed with what YouTube creators call the "adpocalypse" -- YouTube's aggressive demonetization of "problematic" videos. (A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)
To be fair, by 2017 YouTube had a problem. Every minute users uploaded 27,000 minutes of new footage, making it difficult to pre-screen. But after adjusting their algorithm, "perceived, secretive changes instilled creators with a distrust of the platform."
The old YouTube "seemed to welcome the wonderfully weird, innovative, and earnest, instead of turning them away in favor of late-night show clips and music videos," writes the Verge. But the new YouTube is different, say two brothers who used CGI to re-create Mortal Kombat's most gruesome kills on their RackaRacka channel. They say the new YouTube now buries their videos for "excessive violence."
It's BEEN over... (Score:5, Insightful)
Double ads to watch anything and a "recommended" section full of crypto-fascist garbage, yeah, it's fucking over!
Re:It's BEEN over... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.
Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.
Re:It's BEEN over... (Score:5, Interesting)
That wasn't even the problem. People have created great content and continued to do so well into the time when they could actually make money from it. What killed it was that people with high production values can't continue due to the risk of demonetization while those without (i.e. the "10 things that will blow your mind" bull and the assholes that get most of their money from the companies whose products they hawk anyway) can.
So what's left on Youtube is videos from large studios that have a relevant deal with YouTube, videos without production values whose makers don't give a shit that they get demonetized because they can crank out more and if only one of them makes money they're in the black and videos that are more advertisment than the crap YouTube cuts into them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who has high production values and risks getting banned though?
The only ones getting banned are the smaller channels or the ones where it's just some dude talking into a cheap microphone. Once you get big YouTube has actual humans who talk to you and get stuff sorted out.
Re: (Score:3)
There are quite a few channels with about 100k, maybe 300k subscribers that do produce decent quality that are far from being save from demonetization (quite the opposite).
Kim Justice is still going strong (Score:2)
Re:It's BEEN over... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response
Kind of exactly what happened to the History channel and similar channels, that moved from documentaries and educational content to Pawn Stars and Storage Wars. And just like on TV, there is plenty of good stuff on YT as well, sensationalist rubbish notwithstanding, and it isn't always the rubbish that is most popular either
Why would you use ugly word like word "entitled"? It seems only fair that popular content creators get paid part of the advertising dollars they helped generate. If a TV network decided not to pay the creators of a TV show for a certain "controversial" episode after airing it, and as a result the writers, actors, sound guys, stage hands and everyone else on that show would go unpaid for their work as a result, would you call them "entitled whiners" as well? Especially if the network continues to air that episode in reruns?
Advertisers are always moaning about their precious image, and are always pushing to exert control over the content shown around their ads. Google could have just told them to advertise on YT on Google's terms, or kindly leave. And while they might have lost a few advertisers who are genuinely concerned about portraying a "family friendly" image, the bulk of them would think twice before abandoning such a rich treasure trove of eyeballs. Unless there's a good alternative, which there isn't; YT is the undisputed king in this space. Instead, Google decided to open this particular can of worms, and they will now have to deal with ever stricter norms from advertisers to clean up the channels. And the more YT turns into a regular TV channel, the more viewers and content creators alike will turn away. Maybe we'll soon see some competition in this space...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to disagree, well that is providing you stay away from the "top" Youtube channels. Minor monetisation keeps people going in their weird hobby, and for others provided a commercial platform that's accessible to all and not geoblocked to a specific TV station.
The reality is that there's only so many dumb home videos people can take. Some people actually like commercial content such as the video arm of review magazines, or instructional videos on commercial products. Your old youtube is still there to b
Re: (Score:3)
The "Golden Age of YouTube" died when people discovered that they could make money posting videos.
Once people started making money on their videos instead of doing it as a hobby (read: income vs expense) it became dominated by entitled shits who felt that they were owed something. Sensationalism became the norm, and outrage the response... advertisers reacted to protect their image, and the heavy hand of control slammed down -and the entitled shits whined about how they were owed a living for their efforts.
I think the same applies to the Golden Age of Internet in general. People were happy to have free hosting for their content, perhaps using it to promote gigs that made them money elsewhere. (My most viewed Youtube video is a trailer for our last theatre piece.)
Any recommendations for a Youtube alternative that doesn't suffer from these issues? I don't mind some ads if it means free hosting. I also understand there should be some control over the content, but I'm not too worried about that with my math ar
Re: (Score:2)
I never get crypto-fascist garbage recommendations. Maybe Google has built a profile on you that includes a desire to (hate) watch them? Or someone in your household's desire (since it groups by IP address as well.)
Re:It's BEEN over... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Youtube has ads?
Re: It's BEEN over... (Score:2)
I hardly ever see ads on YT. I probably watch channels that are not so interesting for advertizers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I use the YouTube plug-in for Kodi. NEVER seen an ad using that bit of code and I watch *lots* of YT vids.
Re: It's BEEN over... (Score:2)
I have once by accident clicked on one of those âextremeâ(TM) videos, realized my mistake after 10 seconds or so and then found my list of recommended videos full of similar garbage. Amazing. Luckily the stream of recommendations in that âgenreâ(TM) died out quickly because I never clicked on any of them. Nowadays I enjoy Youtube again as my source of funny nonsense videos and videos of mundane things that interest me like cars and fountain pens
what ad? (Score:2)
uBlock + NoScript FTW
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Back then people had small channels with relatively low production value. Few videos / channels were banned, and related/ recommended videos were actually something I wanted, not just clickbait.
Now everything is trying to be overproduced with an intro, and the mandatory "Don't forget to like, comment, subscribe, hit the notification bell, send money on Patreon, follow us on Twitter and Instagram", with content-less clickbait as the "recommended" videos.
Everyone is trying to make a god-damn job out o
Youtube died with the ads (Score:2)
And the ads and the ads and the ads. Then some more ads. The content has become corporate and did I mention the ads?
Re: (Score:2)
What ads?
Just don't watch videos from the assholes that scam kids into thinking they're friends when they're actually just getting paid to promote some crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even mind the ones that tell their audience that they get paid for a certain statement. At least they get paid and not YouTube (after demonetizing the video, so they don't have to share with the one doing the actual work).
Re: (Score:2)
1- There are many effective ad-blockers.
2- If you prefer to stay official, for $12/month, you can get YouTube Premium, which is ad-free.
Re: (Score:2)
I did, and I guarantee you that I immediately spent the 5 minutes to teach my wife how to view it in the browser on mobile.
Dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube never saw itself as a "passive neutral channel of goods and information". Does it matter to you what a private company wants its business model to be, or are all businesses now required to give equal time to every s
Re:Dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An even larger group of people want the freedom to criticise YouTube for its choices about allowed content and recommendations. They demand their free speech and it's very difficult for those who wish to silence them in order to stop their content being criticised to do anything about it.
The group that demands protection from criticism and the "dumb pipe" model of content delivery is extremely small. Then you have the spammers who complain that they are getting hammered by the recommendation and search algo
Re: (Score:3)
Well that is the way they choose to market themselves to get people to the platform. NO, they are an advertising corporation, first, last and everything in-between. The way they present themselves to the public is pure market, the shiny coat on a load of bullshit (the bullshit being the advertising and google will advertise any kind of rubbish as long as they are paid, which makes them an extremely bad advertising platform for quality products because they become associated with the ad shown before and afte
Re: (Score:2)
When it was aiming for DMCA safe harbor status.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can't have it both ways, control of fake news inevitably will spill over to shutting down alternative news outlets, hysteria about pedos means no comments at all on any video with a kid walking into frame.
I don't see why you can't. We'e talking about computers, flagging, and filtering here. Just give people the settings in their account to restrict various content if they want to. (Fake news filter, titty filter, violence filter, comments filter for each, etc.) By default enable the maximum filtering, and make this the default for non-logged-in viewers. Then let people opt their way out of filtering if they want to. (Or in the case of an account set up for someone under 18, don't let them.)
If they opt out of
Not just YouTube (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'golden age' of the Internet in general is long since over.
Define the golden age. There's two commonly acceptable definitions: "the ideal time in the past", or "the period where an activity is at its peak".
I don't yearn for the internet of the past. Content was poorer, harder to find, information was more scarce, everything was slower, the people were fewer (anyone remember sitting for minutes at a time on battle.net matchmaking screens?).
If anything the golden age hasn't even arrived yet. The internet is seeing more and wider use now than ever before.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way it used to in the earliest days - people doing it as a hobby with non-intrusive ad banners and images that didn't try to install malware to create botnets to deliver email spam.
People don't mind spending money on their hobbies, even if that hobby means paying for hosting space for the sites about whatever you want to talk about.
It is all relative (Score:2)
I agree that there is(was) a problem with new modifications in re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see your problem by the words "actively modify my history."
Press the little hamburger control next to the video you don't plan on watching. From the drop-down menu, select "Not interested." Keep doing it. You should be able to get the recommendations under control very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
It ded (Score:4, Interesting)
Next thing you know, they remove monetization from channels that didn't have acertain number of followers.
Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.
Figuring that what was good for the goose was good for the gander, the recently demonetized or disgruntled started complaining about the likely people complaining about their favorite channels. Chaos ensues.
Google has some real problems these days. At the same time they are administratively full blown Social Justice Warriors, they have sexual discrimination Lawsuits against them, and have revolting employees because they apparently aren't Socially and politically pure enough.
Protip: Social Justice Warriors are never placated, they just find something new to be outraged at.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the lack of monetized MGTOW content is what has ruined YouTube?
There is still plenty of good stuff on there. Loads of hobby related stuff, from woodworking to cooking to electronics. The lack of money-making MGTOW videos has not has any effect on the quality of hobby videos.
And why do MGTOW videos need to be monetized anyway? It's a philosophical/political movement that people are following not to get rich, but because they believe in its ideology.
Also, why blame YouTube? It's the advertisers who ar
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the lack of monetized MGTOW content is what has ruined YouTube?
Dare I say, whoosh? MGTOW is just an example of a fringey sort of group that falls outside of a narrative espoused by groups that want only one narrative. Innocent enough within itself, but verboten speech. There are other groups. I just chose one that apparently triggered you. But more on that below.
There is still plenty of good stuff on there. Loads of hobby related stuff, from woodworking to cooking to electronics.
Speaking of which, Cody's Lab has been demonetized. Just a guy who does chemistry type stuff. Hopefully that will make a less triggering sort of reference. But yeah, there is a lot of good stuff on Youtube like
Re: (Score:3)
Cody's Lab was temporarily banned from uploading new videos because he microwaved some fruit flies. Microwaving insects is not allowed on YouTube.
Have you got any *good* examples? There are plenty of fuck-ups on YouTube's end, I'm just questioning he premise that it's the lack of monetization that is causing the problems right now. I'd say it's the copyright enforcement system they are using, and the recommendation system.
Re: (Score:2)
Cody's Lab was temporarily banned from uploading new videos because he microwaved some fruit flies. Microwaving insects is not allowed on YouTube.
So are experiments on drosophila illegal or something? Oh, Youtube must have shit their panties when Mythbusters did some experiments on honeybees and water/alcohol.
Youtube has videos on termite control. They actually kill those innocent little termites. Time to kick 'em off.
Have you got any *good* examples? There are plenty of fuck-ups on YouTube's end, I'm just questioning he premise that it's the lack of monetization that is causing the problems right now. I'd say it's the copyright enforcement system they are using, and the recommendation system.
You remind me of a guy who once worked for me. instead of conversations, he would listen for a trigger word, the pounce on it to start an argument with me. He'd lose the whole point of the conversation, by trying to make himself loo
Re: (Score:2)
So are experiments on drosophila illegal or something?
YouTube does ban microwaving fruit flies, yes. I imagine Mythbusters got clearance from the TV network first, but Cody's Lab didn't ask YouTube and I don't think YouTube offers that kind of service anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.
Wow thats pretty entitled. It's not enough to have free speech. It's not even enough to be given a free platform on which to share your speech. No, you're going to whine if you're not actually PIAD by a big company to spread your speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.
Wow thats pretty entitled. It's not enough to have free speech. It's not even enough to be given a free platform on which to share your speech. No, you're going to whine if you're not actually PIAD by a big company to spread your speech.
You do see the flaw with that, I would hope. As long as the political narrative is acceptable, or you didn't give someone booboo feelings you would get paid. Deviate from the straight and narrow, and you don't. And having an advertiser decide what is proper? I thought you far left people thought that companies are pretty amoral.
The actual problem is that the ads aren't very well targeted. You might get an ad for birth control on a fundamentalist Christian channel, or a gun control ad on a channel about
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You do see the flaw with that, I would hope. As long as the political narrative is acceptable, or you didn't give someone booboo feelings you would get paid. Deviate from the straight and narrow, and you don't.
That's one of the most warped and entitled things I've ever read. No, nothing at all gives you a RIGHT to get paid for your speech.
I thought you far left people thought that companies are pretty amoral.
Yes well you would think that wouldn't you. You have no idea wht "left" even is, so you ascribe som
Re: (Score:3)
The advertiser is the customer in this story. That mainstream advertisers were ever monetizing PewDiePie in any way is the only real anomaly in this YouTube story.
Google is not even an advertising company. They're an advertising display company. They own the billboards, not what goes on the billboards. Apart from their own needs, Google has no advertising creative team whatsoever.
Bran [wikipedia.org]
Free speech (Score:2)
People want to find and share the content they are interested in.
Not what ad brands want.
It will not always be the same politics a brand expects to see.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to play Freeze Peach you're going to need your own server and domain name. Because Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. That's not sufficient these days; content delivery networks will refuse to carry your content, ISPs will refuse to host your server, registrars will revoke your domain, payment providers will refuse your business.
There's a disturbing move online to try and eliminate unwanted viewpoints and it's reaching extreme levels already.
Re: (Score:2)
Its the users who are commenting, publishing, linking, creating new content. The users are doing the publishing, not the social media brands.
Once the social media brands start to become a political gatekeeper for other peoples published comments the social media brand becomes the "publisher" of the users comments.
gosh golly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: gosh golly (Score:2)
It's... It's... (Score:2)
No kidding (Score:3)
"(A handful of creators had been making more than a million dollars a month, and some even quit their jobs to focus on making videos full-time.)"
No shit? Who wouldn't quit their job to earn a million dollars a month making YouTube videos?
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, the way that quote was phrased, they implied some people were making more than a million dollars a month, and then quit their job to make videos full time. Yes, if I can make videos part time for a million a month, I will start making double the videos if I can double my takehome. After all, I have maybe 5 years at best before I'm yesterday's news.
NEVER FORGET that the MSM did this intentionally (Score:4, Insightful)
Never forget how the Wall Street Journal freely admitted that they hired three people to spend weeks mining and deceptively editing PewDiePie's content, then sent it directly to Disney for the express purpose of starting a controversy where none existed. Never forget that mainstream media organizations like Wired and The Independent (along with a few "new media" news organizations, such as The Young Turks) parroted this story uncritically and did not truthfully describe the video in question (which showed a closeup of PewDiePie's face looking shocked and then saddened after the words "Death to Jews" actually appeared on the screen). Never forget that none of them followed up to tell their readers that the Wall Street Journal not only edited his videos to remove all of the context indicating that it was comedic satire but even edited a shot of him pointing at something off-screen and implied that it was a Nazi salute.
None of this is conspiracy theory. The Wall Street Journal was frank and open about their motives in helping to instigate this "adpocalypse". Just days later, they penned a story that basically explained how their intention was to not merely embarrass PewDiePie specifically, but to also start a moral panic amongst advertisers so as to compel Youtube and other new media giants to reel in ALL of this independent nonsense, ALL of this un-sanitized family-unfriendly content, all of this "let the viewers decide what they want to see" nonsense, all of this free speech nonsense. [wsj.com]. They were so cheerfully open about this that they didn't even bother pay-walling that article.
Like I said time and time again when this happened two years ago [slashdot.org], this is not about "forcing" Youtube or other corporations to host content, though partisans will always still seek to end the conversation by saying "free market at work; nothing to see here." Corporations like the Wall Street Journal were able to do this by leveraging the fears of advertisers, fears that are ultimately rooted in the desires and actions of consumers like you and me. We aren't just a part of this ecosystem; we are its keystone species.
So please never forget that this was not a natural or organic or grassroots thing that happened. Never forget that controversy was artificial, was intentionally created and cultivated by large corporations for cynical purposes. Never the day the tail wagged the dog and then bragged about doing it. Understand that this is NOT a shining example of free market supply and demand harmony. Understand how viewers and content producers were ignored in favor of what old media wanted to see happen.
This is not a fluid or free market sort of thing. This is monolithic and dictatorial. There is no fine-grained option (from my understanding) that allows individual advertisers to opt-in to specific videos that Youtube has deemed not politically correct enough, not vapid and conventional enough. And nobody (be they advertiser or producer or viewer) has the clout to roll their own competitor to Youtube. Anyone who doubts this doesn't understand how the Millennials, how these "Digital Natives" have grown up to think about technology. For them, Youtube IS online video (other than porn) and there is very little incentive for them to poke their heads outside of that walled garden.
Once again, there will be replies accusing me of being not just Trump apologist but a paid troll. I wish I didn't have to say thi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you actually read those links?
Or did you just spew your rant, google the subject, and spew whatever showed up to make it seem like your rant was paraphrasing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I even commented in the post that the length was a negative, but if I didn't cover several of those points, it was just inviting the same tired shitty anti-communist replies that usually get modded up to +5.
I don't have th
Re:NEVER FORGET that the MSM did this intentionall (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been well over a year since I read that stuff but read it I did. (I didn't include *all* of the relevant links because I figured the post would probably be little-noticed. I didn't expect to get mistaken for a spam bot, though, I must admit.) The Wall Street Journal was all very open about this, the reporters all bragging about what they'd done. Youtube's crackdown happened immediately afterwards and was also very public and open about it. For those who were paying attention, it was and is common knowledge that this event was one of the major catalysts for Youtube's policy shifts. But you can go on and believe it's a conspiracy theory if you must. I did use a lot of words after all. All the conspiracy nuts like words, therefore, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I MISSED IT?! (Score:2)
YouTube had a golden age?
AND I MISSED IT?
Shit.
I miss everything.
Re: I MISSED IT?! (Score:2)
Well, I did see that cat on a Roomba. So I didn't miss EVERYTHING.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely worthy of a golden statue and an ornate tomb. Golden Age material. I laughed for at least 5 minutes.
Also there was a bear walking like a human while stealing trash. Hilarious.
Based on what evidence? (Score:2)
In my reality, the top news on Slashdot is "14-Year-Old Earned $200,000 Playing Fortnite on YouTube". In my reality, a lot of tech news has sadly moved to videos on YouTube, and new tech YouTube channels appear almost daily. My kids watch YouTube, not TV.
it's the fault of the content creators (Score:2)
Back in the day, you would put your video on YT, but then you would embed it into your own site and link to it from places you think people would like to see it. YT wasn't a destination, it was a place to host videos.
That shit died with monetization, not with changing algorithms. YT put themselves in this position by providing a revenue share.
Re:Impossible to monetise (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, they keep moving the goalposts just when I get to the 5-yard line. I had just gotten monetized a couple of years ago, and had racked up a whole 43 cents in revenue, when they changed the rules so you needed 10k views. Some time later, just as I was getting close to 10k views, they changed it again, so now you need 1000 subscribers (I currently have 76). Meanwhile, my analytics page still shows that 43 cents of revenue... along with 28k views and 5k hours of view time.
I'll keep working on it for now, but if they screw me over again I might have to bail out.
Re:Impossible to monetise (Score:5, Funny)
and had racked up a whole 43 cents in revenue,
You're doing it completely wrong. I comment on Google Maps (I'm a level-7 something) and they actually sent me a FREE pair of physical socks!
Sorry dude, I'm WAY ahead of you.
Re:Impossible to monetise (Score:5, Funny)
they actually sent me a FREE pair of physical socks!
They gave you clothing. You are now a free elf.
Re: (Score:2)
Never took google on the offer because the numbers (something like 100k views a year?) are miniscule for it to make any sense and annoy people with ads.
The way people get "youtube career" is
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, yup... "random crap" is a pretty fair description of the 19 (I just counted them) videos I've uploaded in the last seven years. What I should have said was that I'm still going to put some actual work into it one of these days... ;-)
That said, I agree with your assessment for the most part. But I figure if I can get four times as many subscribers as videos on my channel without even trying, it might be worth putting a little effort into it, and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
if they screw me over again I might have to bail out.
In the story you tell, you never get screwed over. You just don't understand the challenges of a small business, and you have unrealistic expectations about the world staying the same from one week to the next.
In your case, you didn't make a bunch of money and turn into an entitled shit; you merely dreamed of making a bunch of money, and that was enough for you to become an entitled shit.
Re: (Score:3)
You just don't understand the challenges of a small business
Sorry if my imprecise use of language led you to believe I was trying to run a "small business" on my YouTube channel. If it helps, feel free to substitute the phrase "screw over" with any of the following: vex; miff; annoy; frustrate; or bebother.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you in it for the money? You said in another comment you uploaded 18 videos over 7 years, most of "random crap", so it sounds like you are just doing it for fun, not for profit.
It would be nice if YouTube paid you for that, but would you really give up this hobby if they didn't? And is a few bucks really what people need to upload a few hobby videos to YouTube?
Re: (Score:2)
I was never in it for the money before, but I'd like to at least have that option. In particular, I was PO'd because they took away something I already had. Originally, anyone could get monetized, but they wouldn't start paying out until you earned your first $100. I had just barely gotten started down that path when they pulled the rug out. If I'd applied a few months earlier, I might have gotten grandfathered-in before they changed the rules.
In the long run it doesn't matter that much. If I ever hope to e
Re: (Score:2)
I'll keep working on it for now, but if they screw me over again
They aren't screwing you over. You're behind the ball game in the most general sense while competing against others. It's no different than your rent raising faster than your income. That's not you being screwed over, that's you not keeping up with the demand being generated, and if you stay on the same trajectory then you won't ever get ahead.
Life is not a game with fixed goalposts.
Re: (Score:2)
28k views isn't terribly many. I've had 20k in the last month, 375k lifetime.
I consciously chose not to monetise, although the 1000 subscribers requirement would prevent me anyway. My audience isn't the type to subscribe.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll keep working on it for now, but if they screw me over again I might have to bail out.
I don't get it. Before they moved the goal posts on monteization, you racked up 43 cents in 2 years. It sounds like you're in it for the fun of making videos not the money so why do you care if they move the monetisation goalposts?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Patreon and the like are for. Ad money is a fucking meme, people hear about giant sites raking in ad revenue and don't think about the huge number of impressions these places generate. Most creators on YouTube are making their money with Patreon, GoFundMe, and other crowd funding services. SuperChats are another huge revenue source, and with the YouTube Premiere feature you can rake those in on pre-recorded videos instead of just live streams.
Quit waiting around for a pittance of ad revenue,
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of weird. Being repetitious and non-educational doesn't mean that your content lacks an audience, and it's the audience that advertisers pay for.
There may indeed have been a dislike for your content but the reason you cited is demonstrably bollocks.
Not that you can do much about it. Tried bitchute?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube shot itself in the foot. I've had a YouTube account for *many* years and was one of the very first YT Channel Partners (ie: monetized my vids). Here is the timeline:
1. YouTube starts -- no ads, virtually no censorship
2. YouTube sold to Google
3. YouTube fixes some stuff but in the process, breaks a lot more
4. YouTube introduces "Channel Partners" who can monetize their vids and thus ads start appearing on a very few videos.
It is worth noting that at this stage it was *very* difficult to qualify for
Re: (Score:2)
No censorship, no ads (unless the video creator included them in their videos), no risk of being shut-down without notice for some faked copyright claims or community standards violations -- in short, the ability to sleep soundly at night without worrying about what YouTube is going to break tomorrow.
Until the big copyright holders start using that video search engine to find copyright violators and along with the big ISP's, start blocking you.
Both big content and big ISP, who are often the same today, don't want you hosting content and competing or using bandwidth.
It's ideas like yours that make net neutrality important though copyright is always going to trump net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. I just checked my YouTube home page and of the first 50 suggested videos, 4 of them were from traditional broadcasters or "big players" such as NASA. All the rest were from independent creators such as Scott Manley.
Also, it's pretty hard to take anyone seriously when they say YouTube is dead. Wikipedia lists it as the 2nd most popular website in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites). You may not like where it's going but to say it's dead is simply denying reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I too get a lot of recommendations from content creators that are far from "mainstream media". Some are fairly large in their own right like LinusTechTips but many are still fairly small and definitely "indie". (channels like LGR or 8BitGuy).
Re: (Score:3)
"Youtube and all social media are exactly the equivalent of war profiteers, and are just a step above the arms traders that sell rocket launchers and anti-personnel mines to children."
Laying the hyperbole on rather thick, aren't you? I didn't know children have the cash to buy rocket launchers and anti-personnel mines. When I was I kid I couldn't scrape up enough cash to buy a BB gun, let alone an RPG or mine. Who do the kids use them on? School teachers? Other kids who called them ugly names? School dist
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know about child soldiers. Obviously my attempt at humor was too subtle. You said "...sell rocket launchers and anti-personnel mines to children." Taken literally (which is what I was doing), you're saying that children are the ones who buy the weapons (where do kids get the money? Selling lemonade and pencils?). Joking aside, of course the reality is that children don't buy weapons. It's the scum adults who do and then supply the weapons to the kids.
As for media inciting violence, I partially agree. In t
Re: (Score:2)
Child soldiers don't buy rocket launchers. If you give the money to the kids, they're going to take a bus home or something.
The adult soldiers buy the rocket launchers while the kids wait outside.
Just like cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That the Russians colluded with the president.
Re: (Score:3)
And who died, made you king and let you dictate what I may or may not see?
If you want to protect your kids from "seeing stuff", maybe don't use the internet as some cheap babysitter?
Re: (Score:3)
secret algos (Score:2)
What the world needs to see is the actual source code. Someone needs to drag Big Brother Google's secret algorithms out into the light of day. Let the world see just how corrupt they really are.
Re: (Score:2)
it isn't the algorythms or source code we need. Nobody at google even understands that crap. In short a program writes a million somewhat random bots. Then they give a tester bot 1000 videos they marked as good, 1000 they marked as bad. they have the million bots sort them, and all but the best 10 bots are deleted. Then a program uses those 10 bots as a baseline, makes a million more variants, test and delete again etc... when google finds out the algorythm is failing, they add some of what they determine
Re: (Score:2)
Hosting a single video is trivial. Reaching an audience for it can be achieved.
Hosting a thousand videos with an audience of millions takes infrastructure. Youtube lets you start small and scale up, and offers network effects to boost your audience.
There aren't many sites offering that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I see the future of user-generated video content being served via "web/video server appliances". A small, cheap, pre-configured SBC that plugs into your broadband modem/router and allows you to serve content up directly. That content would be indexed and curated through a "video search" site that provided the front-end but didn't host any videos and thus needed far less iron and bandwidth than YouTube needs.
Remember the whole tenet of the internet and networkign in general -- distribute the l
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know I _can_ host my own video site. I just can't be bothered, and it would cost more than I want to spend.
So yeah, I do give a shit about Youtube. If they fail me I'm going to be exposed to an irritating level of effort and cost.
Re: (Score:2)
It comes from the fact that it is true.
That depends. If a private media organization is in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic position, and the government has extensive influence over that organization, then the government may get it to act as unofficial censor without breaking any anti-censorship law that prevents the government itself from censoring.
That also works with a few layer of indirection added, so that it doesn't look so obvious. For instance, the government may have influence over private companies, who in turn have huge ad budgets
patents bring in government power. (Score:2)
YouTube is a private business, not a government organization. They can delete or prohibit anything they want, for any reason they want. They don't even have to give you a reason. They can just delete your video because they don't like you.
If they hold patents that prevent competition, that creates government suppression of alternative platforms of the same type.
It could be argued that government courts enforcing those patents for them, while the censorship is in progress, against operators of an alternative
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the bit that pisses me off the most. I have around 1200 videos that the music cartels have monetised because of incidental background music.
Sadly UK law leaves me no options.